It could easily have caused serious issues for both game and movie reviews that used any clips from whichever media they were critiquing. Come to think of it, it could have also affected channels based on news as well.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Judge sides with YouTubers Ethan and Hila Klein (h3h3) in copyright lawsuit
- Thread starter Pixels
- Start date
It could easily have caused serious issues for both game and movie reviews that used any clips from whichever media they were critiquing. Come to think of it, it could have also affected channels based on news as well.
Or get Joey Salads to talk about how all Muslims should be killed again.
Context?
He had Joey Salads on the podcast and he said all Muslims should be killed.
No, he was not joking. Joey Salads is a massive racist and has faked racist videos before, which Ethan called him out on, so it was pretty fucked up for him to give him a platform.
You say jokes but they reported it as hate speech. That is pretty slanderous in my book.
It was hate speech
Just because sommit is a joke, that doesn't mean it can't be hate speech
Messofanego
Banned
Um, they can be both. They reported it as anti-semitic Jokes and nazi imagery. Your book needs an update on definitions about slander, cause those aren't false statements.
diablos991
Can’t stump the diablos
They are fantastic content creators and I'm glad this lawsuit was decided in their favor.
I look forward to more videos from them and hope this lawsuit makes it easier for them to fight Youtubes continually shitty practices.
I look forward to more videos from them and hope this lawsuit makes it easier for them to fight Youtubes continually shitty practices.
TVexperto
Member
Also worth mentioning and very important is when they said they had to pay 50,000 dollars A MONTH for the attorneys fees (for copies etc, man americas law (and health) system is really fucked, when you have to pay so much for a good defense and even pay little things like paper etc for them, they bill you everything wtf)
RobbieNick
Junior Member
So is this a major victory for fair use youtubers overall or just them? I mean, I can see in the future where is someone goes after say Nostalgia Critic or Angry Joe, this case would act as a huge defense.
Joey's a piece of shit already but that's insane. Gonna have to watch it and see the idiot try and rationalize killing me.
It would of been bad for everyone if they lost, as it would of set president for future potential cases against the fair use law
I wouldn't quite say this is a 'victory for them' as they still had to pay quite a lot to keep their defense going
It's good for all Youtubers since if there's any other similar lawsuits this case can be used as precedence.
Messofanego
Banned
Anyone got a timestamp for this?
diablos991
Can’t stump the diablos
It absolutely is a victory for them.
Just because somebody pays lawyer fees doesn't nullify their victory. Lol.
Many youtubers and fans donated to the cause so not all of this came from their pockets. I'm glad these two had the drive and passion to see this through instead of settling out of court. Downplaying the victory here is ridiculous.
The victory was for them. The victory also helps many youtubers, film critics, and other types of reviewers.
I'm not 'downplaying' the court decision at all, they've spent much more than their FUPA fundraising.
That was my point, that they've had to spend a lot just to keep the defense going.
diablos991
Can’t stump the diablos
If anything that makes the victory more sweet for them. They risked a lot here. They put their livelihood on the line to better the community.
Indeed it does, but it's very unfortunate that the US legal system works this way.
Ninja Kn1ght
Member
I hope they can get their fees paid because that lawsuit was always obviously bogus.
I don't see how anyone here is downplaying that
and to be fair, it's actually not something that 'betters the community'
Unless someone else has the money to defend against a case of this nature, a lot of youtubers will be intimidated by lawsuits just like before, or wondering be able to defend against a similar case
They would have to file a countersuit
diablos991
Can’t stump the diablos
We now have a ruling defining this video structure as fair use as a matter of law. This helps the community by making it more difficult for others to file similar lawsuits (because it will be a summary judgement in the favor of the defendant) and easier for the community to push pack against copywrite takedowns from butt hurt individuals and companies.
It helps the community simply by adding legal precedent for what is considered fair use.
That still doesn't stop the threat of lawsuits, which is the major intimidation tactic when it comes to going up against 'fair use'.
If someone doesn't have the money to defend, they buckle.
diablos991
Can’t stump the diablos
Before when winning said lawsuit was unsure I would have agreed.
Now when winning is almost assured I disagree. This will give any content creator with any sort of legal knowledge/guidance the courage to counterclaim. Citing this lawsuit in a counterclaim will undoubtedly be intimidating to the plaintiff unless the case is substantially different.
Hmm, I suppose you are right here, citing the case will certainly help with the intimidation of other youtubers in the future
KarneeKarnay
Member
I'm a bit of column A & B on this one. It's definitely a step in the right directions, but bigger entities bullying others on youtube is going to continue and it only take one bad decision for all this to be reversed. What really needs to happen is copy right and fair use laws need to be updated.
As much as I like the win here, it would have meant more if this got the highest courts in all the land.
It certainly wouldn't of hurt for it to go higher, but at the very least the decision can be used to convince a lawyer to help someone who might not have the funds to defend otherwise (on the agreement to counter sue, I'd imagine)
It's situational, but at the very least it's there
Yep, same here. Fuck him, he became what he used to call out
Judicial system is a money maker, why do you think so many people are in prison?
Big win for fair use.
ZackieChan
Member
This would only be precedent in this particular court (Southern District of NY), and possibly persuasive to other courts. But no circuit courts or district Courts in other circuits need to respect this decision. You need a higher court to rule in order for this to be precedential.
Plus, the decision is clear that it doesn't apply to all reaction videos, only those that feature substantive commentary.
you pay your lawyers EVEN MORE money and tell them to get the original cost for services from the other guy who wasted your time
It's very good. It protects fair use on YouTube and makes companies(esp studios) think twice before attempting legal action with the creator.
For the past few years on YouTube corporations have been fucking creators left and right, so a victory like this should damn sure be celebrated if you are invested in YouTube in any way.
Stone Ocean
Member
Really good to hear
How is that any different from reviews?
IISANDERII
Member
Damn they've aged in 18 months. Now that it's resolved, I wonder if that'll reverse.
undrtakr900
Member
I only started watching H3h3 earlier this year ago and love them (specifically thier personality), so I'm happy for Ethan & Hila. Plus it's great news for fair-use videos; if they lost it would have opened the flood gates for trivial lawsuits.
If anything content creators should sue those fucking "reaction channels". Watching an entire unedited video while laughing a couple times shouldn't count as fair-use.
If anything content creators should sue those fucking "reaction channels". Watching an entire unedited video while laughing a couple times shouldn't count as fair-use.
I'm curious, what did Ethan do "wrong"?
smokeandmirrors
Banned
good they won this but i hope he gets fucking stomped by the wall street journal.
The things Ethan did wrong have been posted in the thread.
Isn't it obvious?
WSJ ran a story about how youtube was running ads on white supremacy videos and showed an ad running on such a video (which was taken down right after the article was posted), Ethan contacted the video's original uploader who told him that the video hadn't earned any ad revenue in several months, Ethan assumed this meant that the WSJ author fabricated footage of the ad playing on the video when a simple application of Occam's Razor would have told him that the there was another reason for the uploader not earning ad revenue (namely that the video had a copyright claim and all ad revenue went to the owner of the copyright). After it was quickly proven that the article did not fabricate the footage Ethan refused to back down and the idiotic children who watch his videos started sending death threats to the WSJ writer.
shawnbuddy
Member
It's kind of like an alt right bullshit channel, but they were in the right here and I'm glad they won.